MICROFILMED  1993 

COLL  MBTA  UNIX  ERSITY  11  BR  ARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  ^  •      t>    ;^^+'' 

V. .  ,iciT  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


NATIONAL 


Funded  by  the    ^  _,„,,, .  i.  TTrrTTjc 
MFKT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  ^jthout  Permission  from 

Columbia  University  Libiary 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 

States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 


other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  ^^ate^ 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 

i_  .  _i._i-,-.-^,       other 

s  that  'Hf: 

any 


archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopY 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be     - 
purpose  other  than  private  study  scholafsnic 
research."  If  a  user  mal<es  a  request  for  - 
photocopv 


#  .^..  ^ 


! 


.^%  r  F 


eproduction  for  purposes  in 


-«-^ 


a 
fair 


use,"  that'user  may  be  liable  fo^ 


CODV 


■   ~  ''4 


ht  infringem 


t--- 


This  institution  reserves  tne  ngni  ;.- 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement  rutriilnient 
would  involve  violation  of  the  coDynght  i  ;v 


^0  accept  a 
he  order 


A  UTHOR 


^i 


ii 


fiJw* 


,.JI.  A   M,    M..^-0.M,^-^  I 


a!!E!%^**4-»i-- 


•  ■  --sMfesr 


I 


^     ■■:; 


If 


i^«  ff^*. 


•'1 


v 


\V-^ 


8»?<**CC" 


^:'^'!ffi\fe^       Jf 


B^f 


fH^iSi  , 


w 


J?ix'.^-.';- 


DA 


Master  Negative  U 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


tZ-J'/.ll^'JIl 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


DIDLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


f»^ 


179,4 
Z4 
v.l 


pAHMMAidMl/. 


Leffincwell,  Albert,   1845-^1916. 

Myers,  Charles  Samuel,  1873- 

The  vivisection  problem ;  a  controversy  between  Charles 
S.  Myers  ...  and  Albert  Leffingwell  ...  [Philadelphia?] 
Printed  for  the  Vivisection  reform  society,  1907. 

cover-title,  Z2  p.    22Y 


I  cm 


"Papers  •••   repnnted   from  the  issues  of  the  International  journal  of 
ethics  of  April  1904,  January  1905,  and  July,  1905."  Journal  oi 

Volunc   of  painphlots. 


1.  Vivisection.        i.  Lcmngwcll,  Albert,  1845- 


^. 


8-34175 


Library  of  Congress 


HV4931.M8 


.-._.::,:,-v:  -^ 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE: £^„^^_^„  REDUCTION     RATIO: 

IMApE  PLACEMENT:    lA   (^    IB     IID  ^ 

DATE     FILMED: Zl^j£i INITIALS__2^i^tA^ 

HLMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODDRIDGE,  CT  ' 


J-k 


\ 


V 


Association  for  Information  and  image  IManagement 

1100  Wayn(;  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 

iiiiluiilmiiiiiiiiiiiiimli 


4         5        6 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilin 


7        8 

iiliinlimliii 


I  I  I 


m  I  I  I  I  I 


9 

iiiiliii 


10       11        12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


TTT 


Inches 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


^  ill  2.8 


150 


Hill  T  O 
1m 


163 


3.6 


|B0 


1 4.0 


1.4 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


MflNUFflCTURED   TO   flllM   STflNDflRDS 
BY   flPPLIEID   IMAGE,     INC. 


1  \  \  \ 


c\ 


\ 


^■^>/0  :       \  W 


THE  VIVISECTION   PROBLEM 


A  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN 

CHARLES  S.  MYERS,  M.  D., 

OF  CAMBRIDGE,  ENGLAND, 

AND 

ALBERT  LEFFINGWELL,  M.  D., 

OF  NEW  YORK. 


PRINTED  FOR  THE 


VIVISECTION   REFORM   SOCIETY 


1907. 


T^HE  VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIi:  1  V  has  been 
incorporated  as  the  exponent  of  the  principle  which 
demands  not  the  total  abolition  of  a  scientific  method,  but 
prevention  of  the  aini>e>  winch  :H:rra:n  to  ir.  WiMiin  ccrtri:n 
limitatiun;.  an.*  for  certain  definite  (ibjcnts.  -:  rc,rarn^  sia  h 
experimeii'atinn  a-  Jc^nanatt;  aiia  r'g:ht.  Carried  on  beyond 
these  -oan.:s.  vivisectic}ii  •un-'anc-  inonstrous  ana  crucn  a 
menace  to  humanity,   an   aijury   to  the  causc  of   >(aciicc. 

This  Soc'e^v  will   continue  to    oppose  the    arrocarie^  of 
human  vivisection     which  it  has  brought    to  hght,  \vn\\   the 


hope    tliat    ti.e 


some    dav  h 


V,  v..  '   ,    '..**-* 


in'iy    ra 


■'  £%.  ■'--¥', 


and 


condemned  by  the  entire  medical  profession. 

The  viviseciiuii  oi  animals,  carried  on  without  legal 
regulation,  sometimes  constitutes  a  forna  of  scientific  torture, 
which,  m   the   words  of  the  late  D:    IhaRY   J.  BiGELOW,  of 

f^arvcira  alc'cca;  bcia;ol,  "is  more  tenable,  bv  ns  rernien:erit 
and  the  efiforts  to  rroiong  it,  than  burn ai^  at  the  stake."  \'^  e 
shall  a  an   ^o 


O   »*  }' 


L  n  A  b   cits' 


■  '  -  ■  I     ' 


i)nn  except  a■^  a 


1  u  suppre,^  ^uch  abuses  as  are  admitted  to  exist,  ami 
to  efiect  this  w  : boat  interference  with  any  form  or  ie>carch 
conducted  under  State  supervision  and  guarded  no:a"nst  abuse, 
is  the  object  of  the  Society. 

dbie  \b\asFCi;n)N  RffORX!  buc!tn'  appeal-..  therei'Tc, 
for  encouragement  aim  -nppnrt  lo  ai:  wfa,>  nave  at  hmirt 
the  honor  and  interest  oi  scientific  advaiiLCiimni  and  the 
prevention  ot  mjustice  and  cruelty. 

The  lee  for  annual  mem.bership  is  $2.00;  for  life 
membership,  S2  5  oo. 


Vivisection  Reform  Society 

Incorporated  in  1903,  under  the  Laws  of  the  United  States, 


PRESIDENT. 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Late  President  of  the  Polytechnic 

Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

SECRETARY. 
Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  532  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago. 

TREASURER. 
Alfred  Millard,  U.  S.  National  Bank,  Omaha. 

DIRECTORS. 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.D.,  LL.D Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  Counsellor  at  Law Toledo,  Ohio. 

Titus  Munson  Coan,  M.  D New  York  City 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.  D Philadelphia 

Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  Counsellor  at  Law Chicago 

VICE-PRESIDENTS. 

His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons  Baltimore 

Prof.  Goldwin  Smith,  D.C.L.,  LL.D Toronto 

Prof.  John  Bascom,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  ex-President   of  University  of 
Wisconsin  Williamstown,  Mass. 

Hon.  Jacob  H.  Gallinger,  M.D.,  U.  S.  Senator Concord,  N.  H. 

Hon.  Arba  N.  Waterman,  LL.D.,  ex-Judge  of  Illinois  Appellate 
Court Chicago 

Francis  Fisher  Browne,  Editor  of  "The  Dial" Chicago 

Edward  H.  Clement,  "Boston  Transcript" Boston,  Mass. 

Rt.  Rev.  Alexander  Mackay-Smith,  D.  D.,  S.T.D.,  Bishop  Coad- 
jutor of   Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Henry  M.  Field,  M.D.,  late  Emeritus   Professor  of  Therapeutics, 
Dartmouth  Medical   College,    Pasadena,   Cal. 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.D.,  Lecturer  on  History  of  Medicine,  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Alfonso  David  Rockwell,  M.D New  York  City 

Samuel  A.  Jones,  M.D Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Rev.  Frederick  Rowland  Marvin,  M.D Albany,  N.  Y. 

James  H.  Glass,  M.D.,  Surgeon  of  Utica  City  Hospital.  .Utica,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  First  Baptist  Church 

Boston 

Rev.  Leverett  W.  Spring,  D.D.,  Professor  of  English  Literature  in 
Williams  College Williamstown,  Mass. 


i 


9 


Vivisection  Reform  Socifty 

Incorporated  in  1908,  under  the  Laws  of  the  United  States.      f 


PRESIDENT. 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Late  President  of  the  Polytechnic 

Institute,  Brookl)^,  N.  Y. 

SECRETARY. 
Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  532  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago. 

TREASURER. 
Alfred  Millard^  U.  S.  National  Bank,  Omaha. 

DIRECTORS. 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.D.,  LL.D Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  Counsellor  at  Law Toledo,  Ohio. 

Titus  Munson  Coan,  M.  D New  York  City 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.  D Philadelphia 

Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  Counsellor  at  Law Chicago 

VICE-PRESIDENTS. 

His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons Baltimore 

Prof.  Goldwin  Smith,  D.C.L.,  LL.D Toronto 

Prof.  John  Bascom,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  ex-President  of  University  of 
Wisconsin Williamstown,  Mass. 

Hon.  Jacob  H.  Gallinger,  M.D.,  U.  S.  Senator Concord,  N.  H. 

Hon.  Arba  N.  Waterman,  LL.D.,  ex- Judge  of  Illinois  Appellate 
Court Chicago 

Francis  Fisher  Browne,  Editor  of  "The  Dial" Chicago 

Edward  H.  Clement,  "Boston  Transcript" Boston,  Mass. 

Rt.  Rev.  Alexander  Mackay-Smith,  D.  D.,  S.T.D.,  Bishop  Coad- 
jutor of  Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Henry  M.  Field,  M.D.,  late  Emeritus  Professor  of  Therapeutics, 
Dartmouth  Medical   College,   Pasadena,  CaL 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.D.,  Lecturer  on  History  of  Medicine,  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania Philadelphia 

Alfonso  David  Rockwell,  M.D New  York  City 

Samuel  A.  Jones,  M.D Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Rev.  Frederick  Rowland  Marvin,  M.D Albany,  N.  Y. 

James  H.  Glass,  M.D.,  Surgeon  of  Utica  City  Hospital.  .Utica,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  First  Baptist  Church 

Boston 

Rev.  Leverett  W.  Spring,  D.D.,  Professor  of  English  Literature  in 
Williams  College Williamstown,  Mass. 


NOTE. 


i  r^e  roii<)W!ng  papers  are  reprinted  irom  the  issues  of  'he 
Interna!  lONAL  Journal  of  Ethics  of  April,  1904,  January, 

190^  and  July..  1QO5. 


papci 


pertaining  to  the  controversy,  the 


u  i      lU 


state  that  he  did  not 


cniiRiZi:  m   trif: 


practice  of  vivisection,"  and  gave  his  readers  no   hmr  of  the 
tact    tnu    he    possessed    a   medical    degree.       The    resu  1  ng 


oniissiun    o!    ri;i    r-ru^    sn    ir-c 


r  p-  f-^  ■  \ 


vcrv    natural. 


A  brief  [erter  rroft:  Dr  MyERS  indicate^  that  he  posstsses 
the  uSuai  medica.  qualifications  conferrcii  m  lus  nanve 
country:  and  he  probably  represents  the  attitude  of  3 
majonty    of    the    medical    profession    in    Europe  to-day^-™'  an 

attitude   rar    Li^crrri:   from  that  of  the  English    people   thWty 


f»  »>  ■'■ .,_      :"> 


Is  Vivisection  Justifiable  ? 

By  Charles  S.  Myers,  M.  D., 

Cambbidgx,  £ng. 


I. 

It  might  reasonably  be  supposed  that  nothing  new  now 
rests  to  be  said  about  a  question  which  has  been  so  often  and 
so  hotly  discussed  in  the  past  as  this,  and  has  again  and 
again  temporarily  become  a  theme  of  public  interest.    A  lit- 
tle consideration,  however,  must  show  that  the  controversy 
has  been  confined  almost  entirely  to  parties  in  whom  it  is 
impossible  not  to  suspect  a  certain  degree  of  prejudice, — 
namely,  those  who  practice  vivisection  and  those  who  claim 
to  be  protectors  of  animals.    It  has,  moreover,  been  carried 
on  under  the  unsatisfactory  conditions  in  which  one  side 
denounces  the  other  as  an  ignorant,  sentimental  folk,  whose 
enthusiasm  for  the  immediate  welfare  of  the  animal  world 
blinds  their  eyes  to  truthfulness  and  to  the  benefits  of  vivi- 
section, while  the  "protectors  of  animals,"  on  the  other  hand, 
insist  that  vivisectors  have  about  the  same  right  to  be  heard 
upon  the  justifiability  of  vivisection  as  a  bird-catcher  on  the 
propriety  of  cooking  larks  or  of  wearing  osprey  feathers. 
Vivisection  is  to  their  mind  merely  a  passing  fashion,  for 
which  unmerited  academic  position  and  the  mistaken  sanc- 
tion of  those  occupied  in  scientific  research  form  the  attrac- 
tive recompense.    It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  subject  can  be 
treated  with  the  necessary  impartiality  only  by  one  who, 
while  sympathetic  towards  dumb  creatures  and  having  ade- 
quate knowledge  of  modern  biological  science,  does  not  en- 
gage in  the  practice  of  vivisection;  who,  if  he  desire  ade- 
quate competency,  should  have  some  general  acquaintance 
with  the  principles  of  ethics  and  have  had  a  training  in  psy- 
chology that  will  help  him  to  gauge  the  probable  extent  and 
intensity  of  animal  suffering. 

Two  distinct  questions  have  to  be  answered.     Is  vivisec- 
tion moral?     Is  vivisection  useful?     The  former  question 


clearly  deserves  consideration  before  the  latter,  for,  if  once 
vivisection  be  proved  immoral,  its  utility  can  hardly  remain 


■■J  li  ? 


concern. 


II. 

Of  those  opposed  to  vivisection  on  the  ground  of  its  im- 
morality, there  is  a  small  section  whose  views  may  be  con- 
veniently stated  at  once,  as  thev  can  then  be  dismissed  with 
little  further  consideration.  These  people  consider  that  the 
animials  of  this  world  are  specially  placed  under  man's  pro- 
tection bv  the  Divine  Will.,  Thev  regard  it  as  sinful  and 
as  an  abuse  of  our  superior  unelligence  for  man  to  give 
pain  to  animals  for  anv  ourtKjse  whatever.  Thev  would,  if 
possible,  refuse  to  avail  themselves  <T  the  discoveries  ob- 
tained by  such  mean-,  cia^-uig  them,  as  did  ^sliss  Frances 
JV)\ver  Cobbe.  with  the  re-uTs  obtained  by  "robberv.  perfidy 
or  an^-  other  crime  between  loan  and  man."  The  end,  thev 
declare,  never  justifie?  the  means.  Now.  to  those  whn  np- 
hold  this  variety  oi  anti-vivisectionist  opmion.  there  is  ab- 
solutely nothing  to  be  said.  Their  standpoint  re-ts  ii  re- 
ligious fa  1  til.  winch  is  naturally  impregnable  to  argumenL. 
Were  the\'  on!}-  con>i-tent:  did  they,  for  exampie.,  refuse  to 
slaughter  cattle  or  to  poison  vermin  for  the  sake  of  mcrea:^- 

ing  the  r  creature  comforts,  one  could  not  but  respect  their 

>-)  f  f « *- 1 1  ■  -, 

This,  whicii  ma  \  for  brevity's  sake,  be  styled  the  relig- 
ious" view .  1-  the  extreme  form  of  another,  more  generally 
held  and  regarded,  perhaps,  as  the  ''common  sense"  view. 
It  permits  the  infliction  of  a  certain  amount  of  pain  upon^ 
animals,  provmed  that  the  gain  to  man  is  sufficient! \-  great. 
Tt  countenances  the  operation  of  castration,  so  crudely  per- 
formed on  millions  of  animals  annually,  on  the  ground  that 
man  obtains  thereby  better  beasts  of  burden  and  finer  qual- 
ity of  flesh  and  wool.  It  justifies  the  mtroduction  or  horses 
into  the  battleneld,  because  cavalry  are  indispensable  in  war- 
fare. A  salmon  may  be  "played,"  a  fox  or  stag  may  be 
hunted,  because  sport  is  man's  instinctive  recreation  and  be- 
cause the  skill  or  the  social  pleasures  involved  are  suthcuuitly  . 


great.  But  vivisection  is  intolerable,  as  its  results  are  in- 
commensurably  small  compared  with  the  suflFering  produced. 
Such,  no  doubt,  is  the  attitude  of  the  majority  of  anti-vivi- 
sectionists,— an  attitude  which  only  a  careful  estimate  of 
the  resulting  pains  and  gains  of  vivisection  can  confirm  or 
condemn. 

These  two  views,  the  'Veligious"  and  the  "common-sense," 
as  they  have  here  been  styled,  are  alike  obtained  from  the 

"zoocentric"  standpoint:  that  is,  where  vivisection  aooears 


unmoral   Dccaiise 


.  j  I  -, , 


the  suriermg  wmch  must  mevitably  be 

another  and 


w 


t         t  f-|  (-if  .a  <  Q 


mhuu.ed  on  the 
totally  diflferent  point  of  view  f  :  uiv  h  tfie  subject  may 
be  regarded,  the  "anthropocentric"  btanup  mt,  which  con- 
demns vivisection,  not  so  much  on  account  of  the  pain  en- 
dured b}  the  aninialv,  as  on  the  ground  of  the  cruelty  in- 
volved ;  that  is,  the  effect  produced  by  animal  suffering  upon 
man.  This  third  view  may,  perhaps,  best  be  designated 
"naturalistic." 

The  question  here  arises.  Who,  in  the  absence  of  scrip- 
tural authority  (rejected  by  naturalism),  has  a  right  to  con- 
demn as  immoral  a  practice  which  is  confined  to  a  small  but 
intelligent  section  of  a  community?  It  is  well  recognized 
that  nearly  every  walk  of  life  sanctions  certain  acts  which 
in  the  other  walks  would  be  deemed  immoral.  Different 
communities,  different  sections  of  communities,  frame  their 
own  systems  of  morality.  The  ethical  codes  of  the  com- 
pany-promoter the  farm-hand  or  the  slum-dweller  differ 
both  from  one  another  and  from  that  of  the  general  popu- 
lation, just  as,  on  a  larger  scale,  the  morality  of  the  savage 
is  different  from  that  of  the  European.  May  not  vivisection 
in  this  way  be  regarded  as  a  moral  act  by  physiologists  and 
pathologists  and  as  an  immoral  act  by  other  people?  In 
this  event,  have  the  latter  the  right  to  interfere  with  the 
practice?  Most  certainly  they  have.  For,  even  if  vivisec- 
tion has  not  a  deteriorating  effect  on  the  natures  of  those 
engaged  in  it,  even  if  it  does  not  render  them  callous  and 
insensitive  to  the  sufferings  of  others  (a  protasis  which  will 
be  examined  immediately),  yet  the  general  community  may 
legitimately  intervene  on  the  ground  that  it  is  harmful  for 


them  to  feel  that  such  suffering  is  being  inflicted  in  their 
midst. 

At  his  examination  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Vivi- 
section in  1875,  Dr.  Klein  was  asked  (Q.  3539),  "When  you 
say  that  you  only  use  them  [anaesthetics]  for  convenience' 
sake,  do  you  mean  that  you  have  no  regard  nt  all  for  the 
sufferi!]g>  of  trie  animals?"  And  his  reply,  "No  regard  ai 
all"  lias  been  widely  hcki  to  prove  the  utter  lieartles^iiess 
of  ila-e  who  experiment  on  Hvmg  ariiniab.  Vet  not  only 
IS   Dr.   Klein  [jerfectly  right,  but— as  everv^one   who  kneov^ 


tneui  eaii  te-tir\- — vivi sector-  are  n 
air,-  other  body  of  nuui 


less  kind  and 


Hit  I 


t  t  '  ft 

fact  that  i 


i  } » a    t  r ;  5 1 1 1 

s    i  I  v.        1.1    1 1  L  i  I 


1 1'  ; 


)ne  hve^  a 


life  of  multiple  per^onahta:s. 


in  the 
]  iie 


man  of  business  is  one  person  at  his  office:  he  is  another  in 

the  heart  of  his  faniilv.  The  thoughts  or  die  ij^jtanist,  whan 
dis^eeong  flower-,  arc  not  those  he  ha-  wlien  adnnrniir  a 
beautiful  hmdscape.  d"he  surgeon  and  the  vivi-i-ctur  tnaore 
the  operating  table  have  to  banish  all  regard  for  trie  victim 
of  their  knife.  Sympathy  would  be  not  only  u>tless,  bat 
positively  dairmiental  to  the  ^ncces-  of  their  work.  All 
attent  n  has  to  be  concentrated  on  the  operation  which  ma- 
tura  consideration  has  previously  dictated. 

Indeed,  there  i>  no  ground  for  suspecting  that  vivisection 
has  a  baneful  elfect  on  the  temperament  of  those  that  prac- 
tice it.  The  question  remains,  then,  Has  the  public  a  right 
to  intervene  on  account  of  the  cruel  acts  which,  it  feels,  are 
being  perpetrated?  And  thus  the  luruum  question  arises, 
How  much  pain  does  vivisection  produce  ?  It  is  well  under- 
stood that  two  kinds  of  experience  of  very  different  origin 
are  included  under  the  word  "pain."  In  oric  aen:De,  pain  is 
opposed  to  plea^url:  and  has  reference  to  the  general  tone 
of  consciousness,  called  feeling.  Thus,  we  are  pleased  at 
success,  pained  at  bereavement;  an  animal  is  pleased  at  the 
sight  of  food,  pa  lad  a  an  chased  by  the  fa  In  the  other 
sense,  pain  is  the  re>ult  of  appropriate  stimulation  of  almost 
any  sensory  nerve  n  the  body.  Common  parlance  distin- 
guishes these  two  kinds  of  pain  as  "mental"  and  "physical." 
Now,  there  is  little  evidence  of  mental  pain  in  the  subjects 
of  vivisection.     Again  and  again  dogs  have  l)een  observed 


to  wag  the  tail  or  lick  the  hands  of  the  operator,  even  im- 
mediately before  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  Shortly 
after  the  severest  operation  an  animal  is  generally  ready  to 
eat  its  food.  With  regard  to  physical  pain,  it  is  desirable  to 
consider  somewhat  fully  the  object  of  vivisection  experi- 
ments, before  an  estimate  of  the  amount  involved  can  be 
arrived  at. 

Vivisection  is  employed  to  throw  light  either  on  healthy 
(physiological)  or  on  morbid  (pathological)  processes.  The 
prime  aim  of  physiological  experiment,  broadly  speaking,  is 


ond neons  attam- 
of  study.     It  is 


to  place  the  animal  tinder  the  most  nauwa' 
able.  .Pain  it-elf  !<  hardly  ever  da:  -i;a: 
detrimental  to  the  purposes  of  physiological  experiment  and 
is  studiously  avoided.  Every  effort  is  made  to  diminish  it, 
even  In  tla  se  cases  where  organs  or  parts  of  organs  are  re- 
moved fr  !u  the  body  in  order  to  test  their  function  by  a 
process  of  elimination;  in  such  operations  an  anaesthetic  is 
always  administered.  "In  no  case  has  a  cutting  operation 
more  severe  than  a  superficial  venisection  been  allowed  to 
be  performed  without  anaesthetics"  *  during  recent  years  in 
this  country.  Surgery  is  strictly  aseptic.  Should  sepsis  set 
in,  the  law  requires  that  the  animal  be  killed.  Pain  is  ob- 
viously detrimental  to  physiological  experiment  because  of 
the  accompanying  disturbances  in  muscular  action  by  which 
we  commonly  recognize  it.  Changes  in  the  calibre  of  the 
blood  vessels,  changes  in 'the  force  and  frequency  both  of  the 
heart-beat  and  of  the  respirations,  cries  and  bodily  move- 
ments,— these  are  the  signs  of  pain.  Clearly,  all,  in  various 
degrees,  impair  the  success  of  physiological  research,  and 
are  to  be  avoided.  But,  while  they  are  all  concomitants  of 
pain,  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  they  are  by  no  means 
sure  evidence  of  pain.  Cries  and  muscular  movements,  ap- 
parently indicative  of  pain,  may  occur  during  operation  on 
man,  when  the  subject  is  perfectly  under  the  influence  of  an 
anaesthetic.  They  may  be  evoked  from  an  animal  when  its 
cerebral  hemispheres  are  no  longer  connected  with  the  rest 
of  the  nervous  system.    Nor  are  these  concomitants  a  sure 

*  Reports  of  the  inspector  of  experiments  performed  on  living  animals  (Acts 
39  and  40,  Vic.  C.  77),  1901,  1902.  A  similar  sentence  occurs  in  Reports  1899 
and  1900. 


measure  of  pain.  Man  is  only  too  prone  to  suppose  that  the 
behaviour  that  he  observes  in  others  implies  the  presence  of 
the  same  state  of  feelings  in  them  as  would  induce  the  same 
behaviour  in  himself.     When  an  animal  manifests  the  appro- 

pruite  sigiib,  tilt:  sentimentalist  at  once  leaps  to  tlic  coriciu- 
sion  that  it  must  suffer  }n>t  tiie  feelings  of  distress  which 
would  be  hi-  under  similar  conditions.  Errors  of  this  kind 
arc  so  u  ell  known  to  students  of  mental  phenomena  that  they 
iiave  been  termed  "the  psychologist's  fallacyd'  Now,  there 
is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that,  even  in  man,  wide  differ- 
ences  in  sensibility  to  pain  exist,  varving  according  to  race 
and  civilization.  The  natives  of  the  Torres  Straits,  for  in- 
stance, who  have  been  expressly  examined  in  this  respect, 
proved  to  be  about  half  as  sensitive  to  pain  as  Englishmen.* 
How  much  more  obtuse,  then,  must  be  the  suffering  of  ani- 
mals, who  diiTer  in  mental  build  from  man  immeasurably 
more  than  the  races  of  men  differ  from  one  another! 

Moreover,  those  areas  of  the  body,  stimulation  of  which 
can  produce  painful  sensations,  are  far  less  numerous  than 
might  be  supposed.  It  is  true  that,  when  inflamed,  almost 
a-njr  part  may  become  painful.  But,  under  non-inflammatory 
conditions,  most,  if  not  all,  the  internal  organs  may  be  han- 
dled painlessly.  Thus,  Sir  Charles  Bell  wrote  of  the  human 
brain,  'T  have  had  my  finger  deep  in  the  anterior  lobes  of  the 
brain,  when  the  patient,  being  at  the  time  acutely  sensible 
and  capable  of  expressing  himself,  complained  only  of  the 
integument."'  The  recent  experiments  of  Professor  Len- 
nander  on  man  have  confirmed  the  view^  that  the  human 
viscera  and  their  supporting  peritoneum  are  wholly  insensi- 
tive to  pain.  Bichat  long  ago  wrote  that  he  had  seen  dogs 
tearing  their  peritoneum  and  devouring  their  own  intestines, 
which  had  protruded  from  a  liule  in  the  abdominal  wall. 
Considerations  of  this  kind  only  ^how  what  control  the  lay- 
man should  exercise  over  the  -oring-s  of  his  natural  i)itv. 
when  he  reads  of  seeminglv  painful,  but  reallv  painless,  ex- 


* 


[jenments  upon  the  intern. 


O' 


living;  animals ^ 


^  Reports  of  the  Cambridge  Anthropolofica!  Expedition  to  the  Torres   Straits. 
Cambridge,  1903.     Vol.  2,  p.   193. 

•Quoted   in    "Experiments   ou    Animals,"  by   Stephen    Paget.     London,    1903. 

P,   75,   footnote. 


physiologists  of  this  country  compulsorily,  of  others  volun- 
tarily, put  under  the  influence  of  an  anaesthetic  during  such 
operations. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  some  pain  must  ensue  during 
physiological  experiments,  and  it  may  be  urged  with  reason 
that  the  amount  of  pain  must  be  considerably  greater  when 
vivisection  is  performed  for  pathological  ends.  This  ob- 
jection gains  apparent  support  from  the  fact  that  the  greater 
number  of  vivisections  performed  by  pathologists  in  this 


rt  1 1 


iricate   A.   whicii 


countr\    reqinre  a   license,   kiit. 

[)ennits  experimeiu  without  an  anresthetic,,      it  ha-,  iiowcver, 
been  alreadv  explamed  tliat  no  cnHTation  more  ^evf^r.^  ^h-in 
tlie  section  of  a  superficial  vein  is  allowed  to  take  place  with 
this  certificate.     Of  the   12.776  vi\-jsections  performed  with 
Certificate  A  last  vear.  7,854  were  nierelv  moculations.  the 
chief  objects  of  which  were  to  diagnose  various  diseases  in 
animals  and  man  (  no  less  than  153  referred  to  the  detection 
of  rabies),  to  exarnme  milk  for  the  bacillns  of  tuberculosis, 
hair  for  the  bacillus  of  anthrax,  to  test  the  safetv  of  at^nos- 
pheric   air   and    sewage,   to   standardize   antitoxin-    fc.r   the 
purpose  of  protecting  animals  and  man    from   disease       A 
large  proportion  of  such  experiments  must  have  been  ahsn- 
lutely  negative.     The  air  or  the   milk,   for   example,   must 
have  been  often  health\\  and  the  nioculated  animal  suffered 
no  more  pain  than  was  involved  in  the  needle-prick.     More- 
over, the  law  of  the  countrv  compels  the  vivisector  tn  kill 
the  animal  when  the  object  of  the  experiment  is  com|dcted, 
if.  as  is  sometnner^  inevitable,  pani  en-ue-  fmri  inoculation. 
Lven  when  it  dues  of  a  flrug  or  a  U)xin.  tfie  pain  of  such  a 
well-fed  animal  cannot  exceed  that  01  a  poi-oned,  uncared- 
for  rat  or  house-niuu-w 

In  fine,  not  only  is  the  pain  of  vivisection  reduced  to  its 


r\ '%  % '  *i  c  f 


iOW 


uM     -J 


f  1 1 1 1 ' 


not  only  do  the  interests  of  the  experimenter 
J  '  tht  \u\v  compel  him  to  take  good  care  of  the  animal,  but 
the  sev(  r  tv  of  animal  suffering  is  far  less  than  the  lay  mind 
would  naturall}  suppose,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  vivisection  renders  the  operator  indifferent  to  the  feel- 
ings of  others. 


III. 


It  is,  fortunately,  needless  to  examine  tHe  second  part  of 
the  problem,  namely  the  utility  of  vivisection,  at  such  length 
as  the  first.  The  necessary  material  has  been  ably  and  im- 
partially published  by  Stephen  Paget  in  his  ''Experiments  on 
Animals,"  and  may  be  directly  consulted  by  those  who  wish 
to  investis^ate  the  subject  without  prejudice.  Foremost 
among  the  rc>iiu,>  ui  modern  vivisection  stan-i-  <mi]-  \-a-i 
progress  iii  the  -ludv  of  iiiicro-organi>ni^  an<l  iheir  relation 
to  the  prevention  and  eure  'd  disease.  >d)w,  certain  essen- 
uaJN  have  to  be  rigadh-  lulnlled,  l)efore  aiu'  nncru-organisni 
can  lie  detiniteh'  pr(.)\a:d  \u  ])e  a  factor  ni  the  |)ruduction  of 
a  ^ii^ea^e.  Idle  bacillu-  nni-t  he  con^tantU  j^resent  in  ah 
ca>es  ;  it  must  l,)e  i><.)la!ed  an<i  culiivairii  ontside  the  bod\'; 
!t  must  produce  a  similar  disease  zclicn  introduced  into  an- 
oihcr  organisiii,  in  which,  again,  the  presence  of  the  bachlu^ 
must  be  proved,  fjacteriolog}-.  tiien.  depends  upon  vivisec- 
taai.  l]v  means  oi  moculati'm,  not  onh  is  die  ab^>olute  proof 
e>tablished  of  the  dependence  of  disease  upon  the  micri)- 
or^anism,  hut  autitoxin> — cenani  ciienucal  substance^  \vh]<di 


>-,' 


arc  ciabora 


Ui  Lne  bloOu  i)t  ainua i])riatehv-  moculaiesl  ani- 
nuii>  by  nature  ir»v  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  di^ea>e — 
iiave  been  i>olated  lor  use,  U)  the  cu.a-mous  benefit  of  ani- 
maL  and  niankuid.  As  Stephen  Paget  pouu^  out  i  op.  eit.  p. 
2^0^,  ''In  Cape  Colony  alone,  so  far  !)ack  a-  i^nn,  alnujrU 
half  a  miui  ;!i  cattle  had  received  preventive  treatment 
against  rinderpest."  Tuberculosis  in  cattle  has  been  like- 
wise checked  by  the  use  of  tuberculin.  The  severity  and 
fatality  of  typhoid  fever,  and  especially  of  diphtheria,  have 
been  unquestionably  reduced  by  the  use  of  the  appropriate 
antitoxin.  Similar  success  has  attended  the  antitoxin  treat- 
ment of  Mediterranean  fever,  which  for  so  long  defied  every 
known  drug.  Hardly  a  failure  is  on  record  from  the  treat- 
ment of  snake-bite.  The  value  of  vaccination  in  small-pox 
is  universally  recognized  by  those  competent  to  judge.  And 
even  where  bacteriological  research  has  yielded  no  cure,  its 
influence  has  been  scarcely  less  striking.  The  remedy  for 
tuberculosis  has  still  to  be  found,  but  untold  good  has  al- 


io 


ready  resulted  from  the  discovery  that  a  bacillus  lies  at  the 
root  of  the  disease.  Precautions  are  now  taken  (rightly  or 
wrongly,  it  remains  to  be  seen)  against  tuberculous  meat 
and  milk,  a  more  sanguine  view  of  consumption  of  the  lungs 
is  entertained,  the  sputa  are  disinfected  and  the  patients  are 
isolated  at  any  early  stage  of  the  disease.  Contrast  this 
condition  of  affairs  with  the  present  attitude  towards  cancer, 
of  the  causes  of  which  we  are  totally  ignorant,  or  towards 
diabetes  of  wiricli  \  ivisection  has  so  far  taught  us  something, 
but  not  everything  of  the  3etiolo8^>^  Experiments  on  living 
animals  are  at  this  rncMuent  h'vuig  j)erf' uaned,  to  preserve 
animals  and  men  from  tlu^se  riread  diseases.  Wdio,  in  the 
name  of  reason  and  humanity,  would  forbid  iiiem? 

Heroes  ha\  e  not  been  wanting  who  have  offered  their  own 
persons  for  expermicni  U)  advance  pathological  knruvledge. 
In  the  re^earche<  upon  \-ellow  fever.  >e\'cral  m(h\-idu:ds  were 

inoculated.     The  transmissibilit)    of  bovine 
1   \ui<  liCcn   -nnilarlv  tested.     A  martvr 


11,. 


Tcuiosi>   to  y- 


experimental 
tubi 

met  his  death,  demonstraimg  die  crnuagiou-ness  of  Peruvian 
Sore.  Two  Englishmen,  to  prove  the  connection  of  the 
mosquito  with  malaria,  submitted  their  bodies  to  be  bitten 
by  mosquitoes  which  had  been  sent  here  from  Italy  after 
having  been  fed  upon  the  blood  of  malarious  patients.  If 
legislation  can  stay  experiments  on  living  animals,  it  is 
powerless  to  prevent  voluntary  experiment  of  man  on  him- 
self. The  first  use  of  a  new  drug,  the  first  performance  of 
a  new  operation,  are  not  these  experiments  of  man  on  man  ? 
Should  the  invaluable  anti-plague  bouillon  have  been  tested 
on  men,  instead  of  on  rabbits,  before  its  introduction  as  a 
national  remedy  ?  Or  should  men,  instead  of  monkeys,  have 
been  experimentally  fly-bitten,  in  order  to  obtain  proof  that 
the  tsetse-fly  transmits  to  men  the  micro-organism  of  sleep- 
ing sickness;  the  Anopheles  mosquito,  the  micro-organism  of 
malaria;  the  Culex  mosquito,  that  of  yellow  fever  and  of 
elephantiasis  ?  Havana  is  practically  rid  of  yellow  fever  for 
the  first  time  in  history,  and  malaria  is  fast  disappearing  in 
similar  fashion  from  its  haunts,  wherever  stagnant  pools 
are  properly  treated  so  as  to  make  them  serve  no  longer  as 
the  breeding  places  of  mosquitoes. 


II 


It  is  almost  needless  to  give  further  examples  of  the  value 
of  vivisection  experiments.  The  experimental  determination 
of  the  functions  of  various  parts  of  the  cerebral  hemispheres, 
especially  in  the  monkey,  has  led  to  successful  operations  in 
certain  forms  of  epilepsy  and  cerebral  tumor  where  the 
affected  area  can  be  accurately  localized,  inspected  and  re 
moved.  The  discoverv  of  the  meaning  ni  the  ^cmn6>  of 
tlie  heart  wa^  aided  b}'  the  iiioditication  of  one  or  other 
sound  m  arnmaL  by  experimental  means,  \dvisection  has 
coinpietei\-  ehanged  our  vitws  of  the  radation  of  the  internal 
organs  of  the  bod\'  to  the  general  econunne  IroJeed,  as 
Charle-  Darwm  declared,  "I  eannot  thmk  of  an'.'  one  -ten 
which  ha-  been  made  in  physiology  withont  thr  i  raid* 

It  has  been  said  that  these  various  ad\  ances  might  have 
been  nanie  oothoat  the  aid  of  vivi"=ection,  but  history  shows 
plainly  enough  rio\v  m  the  absence  of  extaaament  men  cling 
to  authority  rather  than  admit  the  discovery  of  new  facts. 
In  his  address  at  the  last  year's  Medical  Congress  at  Cairo, 
Professor  Bouchard  declared  that  "the  empiricism  of  older 
days  has  given  us  nearly  all  our  drugs,  among  which  are 
several  which  cure,  ...  the  use  of  which  we  have 
learnt  b)  happy  accident/'  *  Fortunately,  "happy  accident" 
and  mediaevalisni  no  longer  content  us:  the  modern  spirit 
require-  accurate  and  systematic  investigation.  It  is  true 
that  quinine  was  known  to  cure  malaria  long  before  the 
Plasmodium  malariae  was  found,  but  the  discovery  of  the 
plasmoduim  and  our  knowledge  of  its  life-history  have  en- 
abled us  to  administer  the  drug  for  men  rationally  and  effi- 
ciently. 

A  favorite  quotation  in  anti-vivisectionist  literature  is 
culled  from  the  works  of  the  great  English  vivisector.  Sir 
Charles  Bell :  "Experiments  have  never  been  the  means  of 
discovery/'  This  sentiment  is  broadly  true  in  one  sense. 
Experiments  are  rarely  performed  with  a  view  to  discovery, 
and  rarely  lead  to  it  by  accident.  No  scientific  investigator 
would  say,  "Let  us  make  this  experiment  and  see  what  we 
can  discover."  He  frames  a  theory  on  the  basis  of  the  facts 
already  known  to  him,  and  he  proceeds  to  confirm  or  to  re- 


*  Lancet,  Feb.  7,  1903. 


12 


ject  this  theory  by  an  appeal  to  experiment.  It  is  in  this 
way  that  knowledge  advances.  Without  experiment  it  must 
stagnate. 

Apart  from  all  question  of  its  morality  and  utility,  vivi- 
section leads  directly  to  increased  wisdom.  Apart  from  the 
fact  that  the  useless  disconnected  knowledge  of  to-day  be- 
comes the  useful  co-ordinated  knowledge  of  the  morrow,  any 
rational  mode  of  research  which  yields  new  results  is  im- 
perishable. With  all  its  power.  Legislation  can  never 
quench  the  thirst  after  Truth,  or  extinguish  the  race  of 
Martyrs.  As  long  as  retrograde  and  progressive  sections 
co-exist  in  the  same  community,  so  long  will  the  efforts  of 
the  reactionary  always  be  felt  within  it.  There  will  be  al- 
ways some  to  maintain  the  geocentric  theory  of  the  universe 
or  the  seven-day  theory  of  creation,  however  clear  the  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary ;  always  some  to  believe  that  the  Fall 
of  Man  comes  from  the  Fruit  of  Knowledge.  These  are 
the  real  opponents  of  Vivisection. 


13 


The  Vivisection  Problem 

A  Reply. 
By  Albert  Leffingwell,  M.  D. 

New  Yo«k. 

The  thoughtful  article  on  vivisection  which  appeared  in 
the  April  number  of  this  periodical  is  suggestive  of  con- 
clusions with  which  some  of  its  readers  are  not  inclined  to 
agree.  By  a  process  oi  reasoning,  based,  we  think,  upon  an 
imperfect  acquaintance  with  the  facts,  the  writer  has  appar- 
ently come  to  believe  that  animal  experimentation  is  so  care- 
fully and  humanely  carried  on,  so  free  from  all  abuse  and  so 
productive  of  benefit  to  humanity  that  it  should  be  permitted 
to  continue,  untouched  by  the  criticism  of  the  ''sentimental- 
ist"  and  unhindered  by  restriction  or  restraint.  What  de- 
fects are  to  be  found  in  Mr.  Myers'  line  of  reasoning? 
Why  do  arguments,  such  as  those  which  he  has  so  ably  pre- 
sented, fail  to  convince  some  whose  regard  for  the  progress 
of  science  is  as  genuine  as  his  own?  Against  the  sugges- 
tion or  claim  that  vivisection  is,  in  effect,  altogether  right, 
how  is  it  that  some  intelligent  men  believe  that  certain  phases 
of  the  practice  are  unjustifiable  and  wrong?  Within  the 
limits  of  a  brief  paper,  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  bring 
forward  all  the  reasons  for  dissent ;  but  some  outline  may  be 
given,  sufficient  to  define  the  differing  standpoint  of  those 
who  believe  that  without  definite  limitations,  the  practice  of 
vivisection  is  sometimes  carried  to  an  extent  which  is  not 
ethically  just. 

Is  vivisection  ever  painful  ?  Does  it  sometimes  imply  pro- 
longed agony?  This  seems  to  us  a  matter  of  no  little  im- 
portance. We  think  that  the  decision  regarding  the  morality 
of  the  practice  rests  almost  entirely  upon  the  answer  to  this 
one  question.  Could  it  be  demonstrated  beyond  doubt  that 
a  dog  undergoing  vivisection  suffers  no  more  of  what  we 
call  pain,  than  a  tuft  of  grass  torn  out  by  its  roots,  or  a 
flower  pulled  to  pieces,  the  justifiability  of  animal  vivisection 

14 


i 


i 


would  be  assured.  The  impeachment  of  unlimited  vivisec- 
tion rests  wholly  upon  the  conviction  that  in  some  of  its 
phases  it  is  productive  of  agony.  A  few  years  ago  hardly 
anybody  in  the  medical  profession  questioned  the  fact.  To- 
day, nearly  every  apologist  for  the  method,  attempts,  as  Mr. 
Myers  has  done,  to  show  the  absence  of  any  great  degree  of 
discomfort.  Every  effort,  he  assures  us,  is  made  to  dimin- 
ish pain ;  "an  anaesthetic  is  always  administered" ;  the  pain 
of  certain  inoculations  is  but  that  of  a  needle-prick;  and 
even  the  cries  and  contortions  of  a  vivisected  creature  are 
to  be  regarded  for  the  most  part,  as  an  illusion.  "When  an 
animal  manifests  the  appropriate  signs,  the  sentimentalist  at 
once  leaps  to  the  conclusion  that  the  behavior  that  he  ob- 
served in  others  implies  the  presence  of  the  same  state  of 
feelings  in  them  as  would  induce  the  same  behavior  in  him- 
self." But  this,  Mr.  Myers  assures  us,  is  an  error  of  the 
kind  known  as  the  "psychologist's  fallacy" ;  we  really  know 
nothing  about  it.  "Considerations  of  this  kind  only  show 
what  control  the  layman  should  exercise  over  the  springs  of 
his  natural  pity,  when  he  reads  of  seemingly  painful,  but 
really  painless  experiments  upon  the  internal  organs  of  liv- 
ing animals."  That  during  such  operations  (which,  by  the 
way,  are  sometimes  extended  over  weeks  and  months)  the 
animals  are  put  under  the  influence  of  an  anaesthetic ;  that 
in  England  this  is  demanded  by  law,  that  in  other  countries 
it  is  the  voluntary  custom  of  physiologists — all  this  he  most 
confidently  and  fervently  seems  to  believe.  It  is  not  denied 
that  occasionally  some  pain  may  ensue;  but  to  this  writer, 
this  apparently  seems  of  such  a  trifling  character  that  he 
passes  it  without  criticism.  That  the  pain  inflicted  in  vivi- 
section ever  amounts  to  torture,  is  not  once  admitted  or 
implied. 

Now  we  are  far  from  being  satisfied  with  the  comfortable 
conclusions  which  Mr.  Myers  has  apparently  reached,  and 
which  he  desires  to  impress  upon  his  readers.  He  tells  us  at 
the  outset  that  he  is  not  a  practical  vivisector ;  and  his  state- 
ments regarding  the  practice  must  therefore  rest  upon  the 
exculpatory  assertions  of  the  very  persons  against  whom 
the  charge  of  inhumanity  has  been  made.     Do  all  of  these 

15 


persons  invariably  tell  us  the  whole  truth  about  a  practice 
whereby  they  earn  their  daily  bread  ?  Is  it  in  accord  with 
what  Mr.  Gladstone  happily  designated  *'the  delicate  sense 
of  the  reasonableness  of  things"  that  some  of  the  men 
charged  with  cni  i-  should  not  attempt  to  defend  them- 
selves by  distorting  the  truth?  It  seems  to  us  that,  while 
the  statement^  of  experimenters  are  entitled  to  all  considera- 
tion which  ;h  inuter  and  motl^c^  imply,  a  little  hesitancv  in 
grantinij  absolute  faith  mav  be  excusable;  and  that  'lavnicn 


an-  senti-nentali^t,^''  have  >orne  reaMjn  to  doubt.  That  vivi- 
sected animals  soinetimes  sutter.  i>  a  charge  that  rests  wholly 
iipnri  the  evidence  of  men  who  are  neither  ^'sentimentalists" 
iV'T  'davmen."  but  members  of  the  medical  profession. 
Speakmg  before  the  British  Medical  Association  at  its  an- 
nual meeting  in  1899,  the  President  of  one  of  the  sections, 
Dr.  George  Wilson,  LL.  D.,  made  this  remarkable  charge : 

"I  boldly  say  there  should  be  some  pause  in  these  ruthless  lines  of 
experimentation.  ...  I  have  not  allied  mvself  to  the  anti-vivisec- 
tionists,  hut  /  accuse  my  profession  of  misleading  the  public  as  to 
the  cruelUes  and  horrors  which  are  perpetrated  on  animal  life 
When  It  is  stated  that  the  actual  pain  involved  in  these  experiments 
is^  commonly  of  the  most  trifling  description,  there  is  a  suppression 
ot  the  truth,  of  the  most  palpable  kind.  ...  The  cruelty  does  not 
he  in  the  operation  itself,  which  is  permitted  to  be  performed  with- 
out an^ethetics,  but  in  the  after  effects.  Whether  so-called  toxins 
are  injected  under  the  skin  into  the  peritoneum,  into  the  cranium 
under  the  dura  mater,  into  the  pleural  cavity,  into  the  veins,  eyes] 
or  other  organs— and  all  these  methods  are  ruthlessly  practised- 
there  ts  long-drawn-out  agony.  The  animal  so  innocently  operated 
on  may  have  to  live  days,  weeks,  or  months,  with  no  anaesthetic  t0 
assauge  its  sufferings,  and  nothing  hut  death  to  relieve"  fltalirs 
ours.]  ■       *■ 

And  yet  Mr.  Myers  would  have  us  believe  that  even  in 
these  experiments  the  pain  "cannot  exceed  that  of  a  poisoned 
rat  or  mouse."  How  does  he  know  ?  Do  poisoned  rats  and 
mice  live  in  agony  ''for  days,  weeks,  or  months"  ? 

Take  another  medical  witness.  In  his  presidential  ad- 
dress before  the  American  Academy  of  Medicine,  Dr.  The- 
ophilus  Parvin,  LL.  D.,  a  professor  of  Jefferson  Medical 
College  in  Philadelphia,  protested  warmly  against  the  cruelty 
of  certain  vivisectors.  There  were  men,  he  declared,  botk 
in  America  and  Europe,  "who  seem,  seeking  useless  knowl- 
edge, to  be  blind  to  the  writhing  agony,  and  deaf  to  the  cry 

16 


of  pain  of  their  victims,  and  who  have  been  guilty  of  the 
most  damnable  cruelties,  without  the  denunciation  by  the 
public  and  the  profession  that  their  wickedness  deserves." 
Is  not  this  remarkable  language,  coming— not  from  a  "lay- 
nian," — but  a  professor  in  a  leading  medical  college,  regard- 
ing a  practice  wherein  Mr.  Myers  finds  nothing  worthy  of 
criticism?  It  was  no  sentimentalist,  but  rather  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  surgeons  that  America  ever  produced, 
an  i  lor  inanv  vear^  a  professor  in  Harvard  Medical  School 
— Dr.  H<  iirv  J.  Bigelow.  LL.  D  ,  who  in  a  paper  read  before 
the  Massachusetts  ^ledical  Society,  protested  against  ''the 
cold-blooded  cruelties  now  m.ore  and  more  practiced  under 
thv  authoritv  of  science.'^  producing  results  which  he  de- 
clared  were  "contemptible,  compared  with  the  price  paid  in 
agonv  and  torture."  Elsewhere  the  same  eminent  medical 
authority  says: 

'The  ground  for  public  supervision  is  that  vivisection  immeasur- 
ably beyond  any  other  pursuit,  involves  the  infliction  of  torture  to 
little  or  no  purpose.  Motive  apart,  painful  vivisection  differs  from 
that  usual  cruelty  of  which  the  law  takes  absolute  cognisance,  main- 
ly in  being  practised  by  an  educated  class,  who,  having  once  become 
callous  to  its  objectionable  features,  find  its  pursuit  an  interesting 
occupation  under  the  name  of  Science,  .  .  . 

''The  law  should  interfere.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  this 
relation  there  exists  a  case  of  cruelty  to  animals  far  transcending  in 
its  refinement  and  in  its  horror  anything  that  has  been  known  in 
the  history  of  nations. 

"There  will  come  a  time  when  the  world  will  look  back  to  modern 
vivisection  in  the  name  of  Science  as  it  now  does  to  burning  at  the 
stake  in  the  name  of  religion."     [Italics  ours.] 

Quotations  like  these,  from  the  writings  of  medical  men 
might  be  indefinitely  multiplied.  They  are  the  utterances 
not  merely  of  physicians,  but  of  medical  professors  familiar 
with  what  goes  on  about  them.  We  cannot  afford  to  dis- 
miss them  with  a  shrug  and  a  sneer.  If  their  tones  seem 
more  resonant  than  those  of  the  majority  in  their  profession, 
it  may  be  because  success  and  assured  eminence  have  gained 
for  them  the  inestimable  privilege  of  absolute  fearlessness 
regarding  the  criticism  of  lesser  men.  But  of  the  existence 
of  these  ''cold-blooded  cruelties,"  of  this  agony  and  torture, 
of  this  pain  to  which  death  by  burning  alive  is  a  happy 
release — where  do  we  find  the  slightest  reference  in  Mr. 

17 


Myers'  paper?  Not  a  hint  of  its  existence  is  there  to  be 
found !  Why  ?  Is  it  because  he  accepts  with  implicit  faith 
the  word  of  the  experimenter?  That  is  his  privilege.  We 
admit  that  it  may  be  a  matter  of  choice.  But  upon  whom  is 
reliance  most  safely  placed  in  our  attempts  to  penetrate  to 
the  truth,— upon  men  grown  old  in  the  medical  profession, 
connected  with  institutions  of  learning,  men  who  cannot 
have  the  slightest  reason  for  adverse  criticism,  but  every 
inducement  for  discreet  silence— or,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
practical  experimenter  who  may  feel  that  his  position  is 
dependent  upon  the  maintenance  of  absolute  freedom  to  do 
whatever  he  likes  within  the  walls  of  his  laboratory? 

If  space  permitted,  it  would  be  of  interest  to  follow  all 
the  ramifications  of  Mr.  Myers'  remarkable  argument.     In 
certain  directions,  it  seems  to  us  to  .denote  a  peculiar  ten- 
dency  to   credulity   wherever   vivisection   is   in    question. 
Bichat,  he  tells  us  naively,  once  saw  dogs  "tearing  their 
peritoneum  and  devouring  their  own  intestines  which  had 
protruded  from  a  hole  in  the  abdominal  wall."     But  does 
Mr.  Myers  seriously  consider  such  an  action  as  the  painless 
and  contented  gratification  of  the  animal's  appetite  ?    Once, 
in  a  physiological  laboratory,   we  witnessed  precisely  the 
same  thing ;  an  animal,  during  a  vivisection,  partly  escaped 
from  its  bonds,  and  with  the  utmost  fury  of  despair,  bit  and 
tore  its  own  bleeding  wounds.     Had  Mr.  Myers  been  pres- 
ent at  that  experiment,  we- hardly  believe  he  would  have 
contended  for  its  painlessness.     "Again  and  again,"  he  as- 
sures us,  "dogs  have  been  observed  to  wag  the  tail  or  lick 
the  hands  of  the  operator,  even  immediately  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  operation !"     What  inference  would  he  have 
us  draw  from  the  fact  ?    That  it  betokens  the  happiness  of 
the  animal?    Observers  have  drawn  a  far  diflFerent  conclu- 
sion.    "I  recall  to  mind,"  said  Dr.  Latour,  "a  poor  dog,  the 
root  of  whose  spinal  nerves  Magendie  was  about  to  expose. 
Twice  did  the  dog,  all  bloody  and  mutilated,  escape  from 
the  implacable  knife,  and  twice  did  I  see  him  put  his  fore- 
paws  around  Magendie's  neck  and  lick  his  face !     I  confess 
I  could  not  bear  the  sight."     It  was  a  phenomenon  recorded 
also  by  the  editor  of  the  London  Lancet  in  a  description  of 

i8 


I 


what  once  was  done  in  the  physiological  laboratory.  "Look," 
says  this  editor  of  the  leading  medical  journal  of  England, 
"at  the  animal  before  us,  stolen  (to  begin  with)  from  his 
master;  the  poor  creature,  hungry,  tied  up  for  days  and 
nights,  pining  for  his  home,  is  at  length  brought  into  the 
theater.  As  his  crouching  and  feeble  form  is  strapped  upon 
the  table,  he  licks  the  very  hand  that  ties  him!  He  struggles, 
but  in  vain,  and  uselessly  expresses  his  fear  and  suflfering. 
. "  We  need  not  go  on  with  this  picture  of  past  ex- 
perimentation. It  is  merely  of  interest  to  show  how  the 
same  fact  impresses  different  men.  Strange  it  is,  that  a 
dog,  licking  the  hand  of  "the  operator  immediately  before 
the  beginning  of  the  operation"  should  seem  to  any  man  to 
betoken  the  absence  of  all  apprehension — a  sign  of  happy 
animal  indifference  to  its  fate,  rather  than  the  mute,  in- 
stinctive and  vain  appeal  for  sympathy  to  a  being  in  the 
human  form. 

But  the  most  painful  part  of  Mr.  Myers'  essay,  and  in  one 
sense  its  most  significant  inference,  pertains  to  his  unquali- 
fied approval  of  the  attitude  taken  by  Dr.  Emanuel  Klein. 
When  this  distinguished  vivisector  was  examined  before  the 
Royal  Commission  regarding  his  practices  and  opinions,  he 
frankly  and  honestly  admitted  that  he  never  used  chloro- 
form or  any  other  anaesthetic,  except  in  public  demonstra- 
tions, unless  necessary  for  his  personal  convenience ;  de- 
clared that  a  physiologist  had  the  right  to  "do  as  he  likes 
with  the  animal";  that  to  save  himself  irtconvenience  he 
would  perform  even  one  of  the  most  painful  of  operations 
on  a  dog's  nerves  without  the  use  of  anaesthetics ;  that  he 
held  himself  ''entirely  indifferent  to  the  sufferings  of  the 
animal,"  and  had  "no  regard  at  all"  to  the  anguish  of  the 
creatures  experimented  upon.  Quoting  the  last  sentence, 
Mr.  Myers  does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  "Dr.  Klein  is 
perfectly  right"  We  are  not  particularly  surprised  at  this 
assurance  of  his  agreement ;  but  unless  very  much  mistaken, 
Mr.  Myers  is  the  first  Englishman  who,  during  the  past 
quarter  of  a  century,  has  openly  confessed  his  sympathy 
with  such  sentiments.  Certainly,  they  were  very  far  from 
meeting  the  approval  of  scientific  men  at  the  time  they  were 

19 


uttered.  One  of  the  most  eminent  scientists  of  the  last 
century,  writing  to  another  man  of  equal  eminence,  thus  re- 
ferred to  this  profession  of  indifference  to  animal  suffering : 

"This  Commission  is  playing  the  deuce  with  me.  I  have  felt  it 
my  duty  to  act  as  counsel  for  Science,  and  was  well  satisfied  with 
the  way  thmgs  are  going.  But  on  Thursday,  when  I  was  absent, 
— —  was  exammed;  and  if  what  I  hear  is  a  correct  account  of  the 
evidence  he  gave,  I  may  as  well  throw  up  my  brief.  I  am  told  he 
openly  confessed  the  most  entire  indifference  to  animal  suffering  and 
he  only  gave  anaesthetics  to  keep  the  animal  quiet ! 

"I  declare  to  you,  I  did  not  believe  the  man  lived,  who  was  such 
an  unmitigated,  cynical  brute  as  to  profess  and  act  upon  such  prin- 
ciples; and  I  would  willingly  agree  to  any  law  that  would  send  him 
to  the  treadmill." 

We  must  ask  pardon  for  the  quotation  of  these  forcible 
and  far-reaching  denunciations.  They  occur  in  a  letter  writ- 
ten to  Charles  Darwin  by  Professor  Huxley.  More  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century  has  elapsed  since  the  great  English 
biologist  thus  made  known  the  feeling  which  such  senti- 
ments inspired.  The  times  have  changed.  To-day,  a  writer 
in  defense  of  this  attitude  of  indifference,  tells  us  that  Dr. 
Klein  "is  perfectly  right." 

The  utility  of  animal  experimentation  is  a  question  too 
great  to  be  discussed  now.     The  trouble  with  most  of  the 
advocates  for  vivisection  without  limitations  is  that  they  go 
far  out  of  the  way  to  glean  and  gather  what  they  hope  may 
be  fresh  evidences  of  its  utility.     Even  those  who  regard 
vivisection  in  its  milder  aspects  with  a  favorable  eye  will 
hardly  care  very  much  for  the  evidences  of  its  usefulness 
that  Mr.  Myers  presents  us.    Hardly  a  single  claim  made 
rests  upon  generally  acknowledged  facts.    What,  for  exam- 
ple, has  "the  value  of  vaccination  in  small-pox"— however 
"widely  recognized"— to  do  with  vivisection  of  animals? 
Mr.  Myers  brings  it  into  his  catalogue  of  utilities,  seemingly 
unconscious  that   with  Jenner's  discovery  the  practice  of 
vivisection  had  nothing  to  do.    Where  are  the  proofs  that 
the  mortality  from  typhoid  fever  in  any  country  has  been 
reduced  by  the  general  use  of  the  "appropriate  antitoxin"  ? 
Where  are  we  to  look  for  similar  evidence  regarding  mor- 
tality from  "the  Mediterranean  fever"  in  France  and  Italy  ? 
We  venture  to  say  that  official  statistics  proving  any  marked 

20 


reduction  in  the  mortality  from  these  causes  of  death 
through  use  of  such  antitoxin  cannot  be  produced.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  know  that  for  the  first  time  in  its  history,  "Ha- 
vana is  practically  rid  of  yellow  fever."  What  has  this  to 
do  with  experiments  on  animals  ?  Perhaps  the  most  surpris- 
ing assertion  of  utility  is  that  which  concerns  the  mortality 
resulting  from  the  venom  of  serpents;  we  are  told  that 
"hardly  a  failure  is  on  record  from  the  treatment  of  snake- 
bite." Of  course  a  statement  like  this  may  mean  anything 
— or  nothing  at  all.  Of  any  number  of  imaginable  drugs  or 
appliances  it  might  very  truthfully  be  said  that  there  is  "no 
record  of  failure," — simply  because  they  have  not  been  tried. 
But  if  Mr.  Myers  believes,  and  desires  to  convey  the  im- 
pression that  a  specific  and  almost  certain  cure  for  the  poison 
of  venomous  serpents  has  at  last  been  discovered  through 
experimentation  upon  animals,  and  that  its  claims  of  efficacy 
are  amply  evinced  by  a  decrease  in  the  mortality  from  this 
cause  in  the  countries  where  venomous  serpents  abound,  he 
is  entirely  mistaken.  Every  year,  in  British  India  alone, 
over  twenty  thousand  men,  women  and  children  lose  their 
lives  from  this  one  cause.  That  was  the  record  up  to  five 
years  ago.  Has  this  mortality  been  diminished  in  any  ap- 
preciable degree  by  the  employment  of  the  new  remedy  re- 
garding whose  use  we  are  assured  that  there  is  "hardly  a 
failure  on  record?"  If  so,  where  are  the  statistics?  There 
are  none.  It  is  a  claim  of  the  laboratory.  No  such  specific, 
the  value  of  which  has  been  demonstrated  by  a  steady  de- 
crease of  mortality  as  shown  in  the  statistics  of  any  country, 
can  be  said  to  exist.  This  is  not  criticism  of  this  phase  of 
experimentation.  It  is  not  denial  that  certain  laboratory  ex- 
periments have  been  apparently  successful.  But  the  claim 
should  have  stopped  there.  We  cannot  but  think  that  the 
suggestion  of  a  far  wider  utility  should  never  have  been 
made  in  view  of  the  present  practical  impotency  of  every  al- 
leged discovery  of  the  kind. 

What  may  we  say  of  the  moral  aspect  of  unlimited  vivi- 
section? Every  man's  attitude  toward  this  question  will 
depend  in  great  measure  upon  certain  primary  intellectual 
concepts.     Behind  a  thinking  man's  judgment  of  what  is 


21 


right  or  wrong  in  human  conduct  must  be  his  personal  con- 
viction  regarding  the  meaning  of  the  Universe  in  which  he 
dwells.     The  creed  of  the  vivisector  is  not  always  beautiful 
Writmg  for  the  Popular  Science  Monthly  a  few  years  since 
a  leading  American  biologist,  Professor  Hodge    of  Clark 
University,  declared  that  "God  clearly  gives  to  man  every 
sanction  to  cause  any  amount  of  physical  pain  which  he 
may  find  expedient  to  unravel  His  laws/'     Seldom,  if  ever 
has  the  supremacy  of  science  over  the  ordinary  conceptions 
of  morality  been  more  definitely  announced.     If  this  doc- 
trine be  true,  then  the  experiments  with  poisons,  made  by 
Rmger  and  others  upon  patients  in  a  London  hospital,  the 
experiments  upon  dying  children  and  the  incurably  insane, 
made  in  certain  American  institutions— would  all  find  equal 
justification  with  every  phase  of  animal  experimentation ;  for 
it  could  then  be  said  that  "they  were  expedient  to  unravel 
His  laws."     And  if  the  elucidation  of  a  new  fact  makes 
right  any  method  by  which  it  may  be  torn  from  the  secrecy 
wherein  Nature  has  concealed  it,— if  this  be  the  meaning  of 
the  message  which  modern  Science  is  to  proclaim  to  Hu- 
manity, then,  in  more  senses  than  one,  we  are  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  new  era.     One  may,  indeed,  imagine  a  Universe 
wherein  the  idea  of  Justice  does  not  exist,  where  compassion 
and  pity  and  sympathy  are  unknown,  and    where    Might 
makes  Right.     In  such  a  world,  no  thought  of  the  upright- 
ness of  an  action  would  come  to  mind.     In  such  a  world 
—unchecked  except  by  fear— would  flourish  whatever  tyr- 
anny might   desire  and   force  compel,   the  prostitution "  of 
woman,  the  slavery  of  the  weak,  the  murder  of  the  helpless, 
the  causation  of  any  amount  of  physical  pain  upon  animals 
or  children,  if  thereby  what  is  hidden  by  Nature  could  be 
brought  to  light.     It  would  be  the  reign  of  selfishness  and 
greed,  of  lust  and  force,  of  cruelty— and  utility.     That  to- 
day, we  are  not  living  in  a  world,  ruled  supremely  by  claw 
and  tooth  and  nail ;  that  some  conception  of  moral  ideas  has 
brightened  the  path  of  humanity  in  its  slow  progress  upward 
from  brutality ;  that  with  us,  power  does  not  mean  equity ; 
that  cruelty  is  infamous,  and  injustice  is  ignoble,  and  pity 
is  divine,  this  world  of  ours  owes  to  teaching  far  different 


22 


from  that  of  the  biologist  who,  in  his  imagination,  creates  a 
"God"  that  hides  facts,  and  gives  torture  the  right  to  find 
them. 

What  may  we  hope  to  accomplish  in  the  reform  of  vivi- 
section as  it  exists  to-day?  Considerations  of  space  forbid 
anything  but  the  briefest  of  outlines;  and  yet  certain  lines 
of  possible  activity  would  seem  apparent.  It  seems  to  us, 
that  first  of  all,  there  must  be  the  gradual  creation  of  public 
sentiment  which  shall  be  eager,  not  so  much  to  condemn  all 
vivisection,  or  to  approve  it  all,  as  to  know  with  certainty 
the  facts.  Take,  for  example,  the  question  of  vivisection  in 
institutions  of  learning.  To  what  extent  is  it  carried  on 
merely  to  demonstrate  what  every  student  knows  in  ad- 
vance? If  one  may  judge  from  authoritative  statements 
put  forth  for  general  information,  it  would  appear  that  cer- 
tain lines  of  experiment  are  now  permitted  in  America  and 
in  England,  which  hardly  more  than  a  generation  ago  were 
condemned  as  cruel  by  the  medical  profession  of  Great 
Britain.  We  ought  to  know  if  this  is  true ;  and  if  found  so, 
we  ought  to  inquire  why  it  is  that  experiments  which 
scarcely  thirty  years  ago  were  almost  universally  condemned, 
are  less  abhorrent  to-day  ?  The  removal  of  the  secrecy  that 
so  generally  enshrouds  vivisection  is  the  first  and  most  im- 
portant step  toward  any  true  reform. 

And  when  secrecy  is  removed,  and  we  know  the  facts, 
then  must  there  be  a  yet  wider  promulgation  of  the  truth 
about  it  than  is  possible  to-day.  By  the  propaganda  of  the 
press,  by  the  advocacy  of  the  principles  which  underlie  our 
opposition  to  irresponsible  and  unrestricted  vivisection,  by 
the  contrast  of  views,  by  the  incitement  of  interest  in  a  sub- 
ject which  is  naturally  most  distasteful  to  the  average  mind, 
there  must  gradually  be  created  a  public  sentiment  that 
will  be  heard  when  it  asks  for  some  measure  of  reform,  for 
some  method  for  preventing  what  ought  not  to  exist. 

And  finally,  there  must  come  the  regulation  of  vivisection 
by  law.  This  does  not  mean  the  abolition  of  all  physiolog- 
ical investigation,  as  they  who  clamor  for  non-interference 
so  often  assert.  It  need  not  imply  a  single  impediment  to 
any  scientific  inquiry  that  is  of  potential  value  to  humanity 

23 


and  possible  without  anguish.     But  the  law  certainly  should 
forbid  all  cruel  and  all  useless  experiments  such  as  those  so 
emphatically  condemned  by  Parvin  and  Bigelow  and  Wilson. 
It  ought  to  bring  upon  official  records  the  number  of  experi- 
ments performed,  the  objects  which  were  in  view,  the  results 
which  were  attained,  the  species  of  animals  upon  which  the 
investieation^  uere  made,  the  anaesthetics  which  were  ad- 
mmistered,  and  everything  that  pertains  to  the  prevention 
of  pain.     We  may  say  that  all  this  is  but  little  more  than 
the  drawing  aside  of  curtains  and  the  admission  of  the  light. 
It  is  so  little  to  ask  that  one  is  amazed  at  the  resistance 
which  the  laboratory  makes  to  the  demand.     Will  that  re- 
sistance be  perpetually  effective  ?    We  doubt  it.     No  human 
institution  has  yet  been  able  to  keep  hidden  what  the  world 
wishes  to  know ;  and  when  all  is  known  we  may  be  sure  that 
in  the  matter  of  vivisection  the  distinction  will  be  very  clearly 
drawn  between  what  is  permissible  and  what  is  to  be  con- 
demned by  the  conscience  of  mankind. 


24 


THE  VIVISECTION  PROBLEM :    A  REJOINDER. 

By  C.  S.  Myers,  M.  D. 

I  have  neither  the  desire  nor  the  time  to  reply  at  length 
to  Dr.  Leffingweirs  criticism  to  my  paper. 

Dr.  Leffingwell  asks,  "What  ...  has  the  value  of  vac- 
cination in  small-pox  .  .  .  to  do  with  the  vivisection  of  an- 
imals?" Is  he  unaware  that  the  supply  of  lymph  for  the 
purpose  of  vaccination  in  civilized  communities  is  derived 
from  calves  who  are  expressly  inoculated  for  the  purpose? 

He  asks,  "Where  are  the  proofs  that  the  mortality  from 
typhoid  fever  in  any  country  has  been  reduced  by  the  gen- 
eral use  of  the  'appropriate  antitoxin'  ?"  He  will  find  them 
in  Dr.  G.  E.  Wright's  data  derived  from  the  Boer  War, 
which  are  gaining  general  acceptance. 

Then  he  inquires,  "What  has  this  [the  fact  that  Havana 
is  practically  rid  of  yellow  fever]  to  do  with  experiments  on 
animals?"  I  will  tell  him.  Yellow  fever  has  been  van- 
quished by  the  destruction  of  mosquitoes;  the  relation  of 
mosquitoes  to  yellow  fever  was  suggested  by  their  already 
proven  relation  to  malaria ;  our  knowledge  of  the  life-history 
of  the  malarial  parasite  was  in  great  measure  due  to  ex- 
periments on  birds. 

He  suggests  that  the  reason  why  there  is  no  record  of 
failure  in  the  use  of  antivenene  as  a  remedy  against  snake- 
bite is  that  this  remedy  has  never  been  tried.  I  refer  him  to 
the  list  of  cases  of  snake-bite  successfully  treated  by  anti- 
venene, in  the  "Twentieth  Century  Practice  of  Medicine," 
Vol.  XX,  pp.  527-528. 

Surely  then.  Dr.  Leffingwell  is  very  right  when  he  says, 
"It  seems  to  us  that  first  of  all  there  must  be  the  general 
creation  of  public  sentiment  which  shall  be  eager  ,  ,  ,  to 
know  with  certainty  the  facts/' 

He  accuses  English  physicians  of  experimenting  with  poi- 
sons on  patients  of  a  London  hospital.  He  gives  no  details, 
but  I  unhesitatingly  declare  such  abominable  accusations  to 
be  false.  He  charges  his  fellow-countrymen  with  experi- 
menting on  the  incurably  insane.  But  in  the  Journal  of  the 
American  Medical  Association,  1901,  Professor  Keen  has  al- 

25 


ready  proved  the  "garbled  and  inaccurate"  nature  of  this 
charge.  The  recent  English  libel  action  of  Bayliss  vs.  Coler- 
idge has  shown  us  how  such  anti-vivisectionist  methods  may 
be  satisfactorily  dealt  with.  I  will  merely  express  my  sur- 
prise that  a  scientifically  educated  man  can  be  found  who 
ventures  to  make  capital  out  of  the  popular  aversion  to  "ex- 
periment," who  ignores  the  fact  that  every  advance  in  the 
art  of  healing  must  necessarily  be  "experimental"  at  the  out- 
set. 

Dr  Leffingwell  tries  to  convict  me  of  sympathy  with  Dr. 
Klein's  attitude  towards  vivisection  generally,  because  I 
presumably  interpreted  one  of  his  answers  before  the  Royal 
Commission.  Dr  Leffingwell  has  omitted  to  state  that  Dr. 
Klein  vainly  begged  the  Commissioners  to  amend  his  evi- 
dence, as  "when  under  viva  voce  examination  the  fact  of  my 
being  a  foreigner  made  me  often  not  able  to  appreciate  all 
the  purport  of  the  questions  which  were  asked  of  me,  and 
that  therefore  my  answers  were  not  always  such  as  I  would 
have  desired  to  give  if  I  had  quite  understood  the  question." 
This  letter  and  the  amended  evidence  could  hardly  escape 
the  careful  reader's  notice,  as  they  are  referred  to  in  the 
first  page  of  the  report  and  are  published  at  length  in  an 
appendix.  The  appendix  throws  an  altogether  different 
light  on  Dr.  Klein's  real  attitude.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  my 
personal  acquaintance  with  this  eminent  pathologist  assures 
me  that  he  is  incapable  of  unnecessary  cruelty. 

But  what  is  Dr.  Leffingwell's  attitude  in  regard  to  vivi- 
section? He  must  be  well  aware  that  there  is  not  a  physi- 
cian of  eminence  at  the  present  day  who  believes  that  ani- 
mals "are  tortured  to  little  or  no  purpose"  for  scientific  ob- 
jects. Yet  he  attributes  unverifiable  quotations  to  the  editor 
of  the  'Lancet,  which  after  special  inquiry  I  have  good  rea- 
sons for  doubting,  and  he  mixes  up  modern  with  past  opin- 
ions, thus  successfully  confusing  the  ignorant.  But  although 
he  uses  all  the  methods  of  the  anti-vivisectionists,  he  has  not 
the  courage  to  decry  vivisection  "in  certain  phases."  He 
does  not  choose  to  tell  us  what  particular  "phases"  are  to  be 
condemned.  He  pretends  that  vivisections  are  shrouded  in 
mystery  and  suggests  that  under  present  arrangements  phys- 
iologists are  in  the  habit  of  keeping  secret  the  experiments 
so  cruelly  made  by  them  on  animals ! 

26 


COMMENTS  ON  MR.  MYERS'  REJOINDER. 
By  Albert  Leffingwell,  M.  D. 

Mr.  Myers  refers  to  certain  "quotations"  (there  was  but 
one)  "attributed  to  the  editor  of  the  Lancet,  which,  after 
special  inquiry,  I  have  good  reasons  for  doubting."  It  will 
be  very  easy  to  remove  his  doubts.  The  leading  editorial  in 
the  Lancet  of  August  22,  1863,  is  a  vigorous  arraignment 
of  vivisection  as  a  method  of  teaching  well-known  facts. 
Said  the  editor  of  the  Lancet :  "The  entire  picture  of  vivi- 
sectional  illustration  of  ordinary  lectures  is  to  us,  personally, 
repulsive  in  the  extreme.  Look,  for  example,  at  the  animal 
before  us,  stolen  (to  begin  with)  from  his  master";  and 
then  follow  the  words  which  Mr.  Myers  imagined  it  was 
safe  to  doubt.  "We  repudiate  the  whole  of  this  class  of 
procedure,"  adds  the  writer  of  the  Lancet  editorial.  And 
while  Mr.  Myers  is  verifying  the  accuracy  of  this  quotation, 
if  he  will  also  take  the  trouble  to  look  up  the  editorials  on 
vivisection  which  appeared  in  the  Lancet  of  August  11, 
i860;  October  20,  i860;  February  6,  1875,  and  August  21, 
1875 ;  in  the  Medical  Times  and  Gazette  (London)  of  March 
2,  1861,  and  August  16,  1862 ;  in  the  British  Medical  Journal 
of  May  II,  1861;  October  19,  1861 ;  September  6,  1862; 
August  22,  1863;  September  19,  1863;  January  16,  1864, 
and  June  11,  1864,  he  will  see  how  the  horrible  cruelties  that 
sometimes  pertain  to  scientific  experimentation  upon  animals 
were  regarded  by  the  medical  profession  of  England  a  gen- 
eration ago.  Mr.  Myers  calls  these  "past  opinions."  Since 
they  relate  to  ethics,  how  do  they  cease  to  be  of  value  be- 
cause forty  years  old? 

In  my  paper  there  was  a  line  referring  in  the  briefest  way 
possible  to  Ringer's  experiments  in  a  London  hospital,  upon 
his  unfortunate  patients.  Apparently  Mr.  Myers  never 
heard  of  them;  but  he  says,  "I  unhesitatingly  declare  such 
abominable  accusations  to  be  false,"  with  a  fervor  that  cer- 
tainly does  credit  to  his  heart.  But  suppose  the  abominable 
accusations  are  proven  true,  in  what  position  does  Mr.  Myers 
then  find  himself?  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  Dr. 
Ringer,  in  his  work  on  "Therapeutics"  and  in  medical  jour- 

27 


/ 


; 


\ 


\ 


nals  like  the  Lancet,  stated  that  he  had  made  such  "experi- 
ments" ;  among  other  poisons  thus  experimented  with,  and 
duly  described,  were  muscarin,  gelsemium  and  ethylatro- 
pium.  In  the  Medical  Times  (London)  for  November  lo, 
1883,  the  editor  thus  refers  to  certain  of  Dr.  Ringer's  ex- 


pen: 


i'  C  i  J 


"In  publishing— and,  indeed,  in  instituting  their  reckless  experi- 
ments on  the  effect  of  nitrite  of  sodium  on  the  human  subject, 
Professor  Ringer  and  Dr.  Murrell  ha\^  made  i  deplorably  false 
move.  ...  It  is  impossible  to  read  the  paper  in  lit  week's  Lancet 
without  distress.  Of  the  eighteen  adults  to  wh  i!?  Drs.  Ringer 
and  Murrell  administered  the  drug  in  ten-gram  doses  all  but  one 
averred  that  they  would  expect  to  drop  down  dead  if  they  ever 
took  another  dose.  One  woman  fell  to  the  ground  and  lay  with 
throbbing  head  and  nausea  for  three  hours.  The  next  series  of 
experiments  was  with  five-grain  doses.  The  same  results  followed 
in  ten  out  of  sixteen  cases.  .  .  .  Whatever  credit  may  be  given 
to  Drs.  Ringer  and  Murrell  for  scientific  enthusiasm,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  acquit  them  of  grave  indiscretion.  There  will  be  a  howi 
throughout  the  country  if  it  comes  out  that  officers  of  a  public 
charity  are  in  the  habit  of  trying  such  useless  and  cruel  experi- 
ments on  the  patients  committed  to  their  care." 

"Useless  and  cruel  experiments  on  patients'' — that  is  the 
charge  made  agamst  Dr.  Ringer  by  a  leading  medical  jour- 
nal of  his  own  land.  I  did  not  stigmatize  these  experiments 
in  any  way ;  that  was  done  by  his  own  countrymen. 

In  bringing  lorward  the  fact  that  the  Royal  Commission 
declined  to  permit  Dr  Klein  to  substitute  his  amended  re- 
marks for  his  actual  statements,  I  cannot  see  that  Mr.  Myers 
renders  any  great  service  to  his  physiological  friend.  A 
wruer  takes  accepted  testimony,  not  rejected  and  discredited 
inventions.  The  inquiring  reader  should  procure  a  copy  of 
Dr.  Klein's  testimony,  so  far  as  it  related  to  his  personal 
.  rrctices.  and  see  if  in  Dr.  Klein's  replies  to  the  questions 
asked  him,  he  can  discern  the  slightest  evidence  of  inade- 
quate comprehension. 

If  ^^Ir  Myers  thinks  that  reference  to  some  army  sur- 
geon's experience  during  the  Boer  War  supplies  the  statistics 
of  a  country,  for  which  I  asked ;  if  he  does  not  know  that 
sacculation  was  carried  on  for  nearly  seventy  years,  inde- 
,  en  iently  of  calf-lymph,  and  that  the  vivisection  of  animals 
contributed  nothing  to  Jenner's  discovery ;  if  he  fancies  that 

28 


the  freedom  of  Havana  from  yellow  fever, — by  no  means  so 
assured  as  when  he  wrote, — may  be  attributed  to  experi- 
ments on  birds;  if  he  believes  that  reference  to  certain  al- 
leged cures  of  snake-bite  by  antivenene  furnish  me  with  evi- 
dence of  decreased  mortality  in  a  nation  like  that  of  India, 
where  20,000  deaths  from  this  cause  annually  occur, — then 
I  fear  that  no  amount  of  reasoning,  within  space  available 
here,  would  convince  him  of  his  errors. 

If  this  discussion  must  close  here,  let  it  be  on  my  part 
with  an  appreciation.  Of  Mr.  Myers'  sincerity  and  intellec- 
tud  honesty  I  can  have  no  doubt.  Thirty-five  years  ago  I 
should  have  written  as  he  writes  to-day,  inspired  by  the  de- 
lusion that  science  can  make  ethical  laws  for  herself.  And 
yet  it  is  possible  that  were  ours  the  opportunity  of  an  ex- 
tended contrast  of  views,  we  should  find  not  a  few  points  of 
agreement.  He  would  certainly  discover  that  I  am  not  an 
anti-vivisectionist ;  and  that  everything  in  the  way  of  pain- 
less experimentation  seems  to  me  as  unobjectionable  as  to 
himself.  On  the  other  hand,  I  think  I  should  be  able  to 
point  out  to  him  lines  of  vivisection,  the  cruelty  and  wicked- 
ness of  which  are  so  manifest,  that,  convinced  of  their  ex- 
istence, he  could  not  fail  to  condemn  them  as  severely  as  did 
the  editors  of  the  British  Medical  Journal  and  the  Lancet 
forty  years  ago. 


29 


(The  following  criticism  is  reprinted  from  the  Journal  of  Philos- 
ophy, Psychology  and  Scientific  Methods,  of  March  i6,  1905, 
Vol.  II,  No.  6,  pp.  157-159) 

The  Vivisection  Problem.  {A  Reply.)  Albert  Leffingwell,  M.D. 
International  Journal  of  Ethics,  January,  1905^  pp.  221-231. 
The  matter  of  the  controversy  over  vivisection  is  continually  at  the 
focus  of  public  attention,  and  this  alone  would  sufficiently  account 
for  a  great  deal  of  its  puerile  treatment.  Xo  other  current  question 
affords  a  more  vivid  illustration  of  the  osciliations  of  thought.  The 
almost  exact  balance  maintained  between  ^.pprobatiori  on  the  ground 

cruelty,   producing 
the  putiHc  about 


irrijurid 


of  utility  and  disapprobation  "n  t 
much  rluctuation  of  individual  conv 
evenly  divided. 

This  article   is    written    in   reply  to  on 
Justifiable?'  by  C.   S.   Myers,  of  Gonville  anc 


till  keep- 


entitled,   'Ts  Vivisection 

Caius  College.  Cam- 


bridge, published  m  the  same  journal,  April,  1904. 

Mr.  Myers,  who  poses  as  an  unprejudiced  arbitrator  having  gen- 
eral acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  ethics  and  psychology,  regis- 
ters an  almost  unqualified  endorsement  of  the  practice.  He  class- 
ifies the  opponents  of  vivisection  on  moral  grounds  according  to 
three  standpoints,  viz.,  the  'religious,'  the  'common-sense'  and  the 
'naturalistic'  The  first  considers  that  animals  are  placed  in  the 
world  by  Divine  Will  and  that  man  is  their  natural  protector;  it 
is  an  abuse  of  superior  intelligence  for  man  to  inflict  pain  on  them 
for  any  purpose  whatever.  The  'common-sense'  antagonist,  while 
opposing  extreme  cruelty,  sanctions  the  infliction  of  a  certain  amount 
of  pain  upon  animals,  providing  man's  gain  thereby  is  sufficiently 
great.  The  third  standpoint,  the  'naturalistic'  condemns  vivisection 
not  so  much  on  account  of  the  pain  endured  by  the  animals,  as  on 
account  of  the  reflex  effect  which  cruelty  has  upon  man. 

The  arguments  which  Mr.  Myers  adduces  in  refutation  of  these 
respective  positions  are:  that  those  who  argue  from  the  'religious' 
standpoint  are  inconsistent  when  they  sanction  the  slaughtering  of 
cattle  and  the  poisoning  of  vermin  for  the  sake  of  increasing  human 
comfort;  that  the  'common-sense'  antagonist  is  ignorant  of  the 
great  utihty  of  vivisection;  and  that  the  'naturalistic'  view  does  not 
take  into  account  the  truth  of  'multiple-personality'  which  means 
that,  while  a  vivisector  may  be  humane  on  all  other  points,  sympathy 
would  be  positively  detrimental  to  success  at  the  operating-table. 

This  author  cites  the  'psychologist's  fallacy'  in  refuting  the  charge 
of  'the  sentimentalist'  that  vivisection  involves  the  infliction  of  agony, 
saying  that  the  cries  and  writhing  of  the  animal-subjects  are  no 
criterion  of  true  'mental  pain.'  Besides,  dogs  have  been  observed  to 
wag  their  tails  and  lick  the  hands  of  the  operator,  which  evinces 
their  indifference  to  the  experiment. 

He  further  considers  it  needless  to  discuss  the  utility  of  vivisection, 
productive  as  it  has  been  of  such  magnificent  results  in  the  study 
of  microorganisms  and  the  discovery  of  antitoxins.  Typhoid  and 
Mediterranean  fever,  diptheria,  tuberculosis  in  cattle  and  snake-bite 
have  been  successfully  combated  with  remedies  perfected  through 
vivisectional  experiments. 

Dr.  Leffingwell,  himself  a  physician,  is  inclined  to  view  the  matter 
in  another  light.  While  laying  no  especial  claim  to  knowledge  of  the 
principles  of  ethics  and  psychology,  he  doubts  whether  natural  laws 

30 


^ ' 


f 


are  to  be  discovered  and  human  welfare  promoted  at  the  expense 
of  animal  agony.  The  question  of  degree  of  pain  is  one  of  some 
importance  to  him.  He  says,  "The  impeachment  of  unlimited  vivi- 
section rests  wholly  upon  the  conviction  that  in  some  of  its  phases 
it  is  productive  of  agony."  The  recognition  of  the  value  and  moral 
legitimacy  of  definitely  restricted  vivisection  should  not  blind  one 
to  the  fact  that,  beyond  certain  limits,  it  becomes  grossly  immoral 
"That  vivisected  animals  sometimes  suffer,  is  a  charge  that  rests 
wholly  upon  the  evidence  of  men  who  are  neither  'sentimentalists* 
nor  'la\Tnen,'  but  members  of  the  medical  profession.  Speaking  be- 
fore the  British  Medical  Association  at  its  annual  meeting  in  1899, 
the  President  of  one  of  the  sections,  Dr.  George  Wilson,  LL.D., 
made  this  remarkable  charge:  T  have  not  allied  myself  to  the  anti- 
vivisectionists,  but  /  accuse  my  profession  of  m^sicidin,:  the  public 
as  to  the  cruelties  and  horrors  which  are  p^-rpctrated  on  animal 
life.  .  .  .  Whether  so-called  toxins  are  injected  under  the  skin,  into 
the  peritoneum,  into  the  cranium,  under  the  dura-mater,  into  the 
pleural  cavity ,  into  the  veins,  eyes,  or  other  organs — and  all  these 
methods  are  ruthlessly  practiced — there  is  long-drawn-out  agony. 
The  animal  so  innocently  operated  on  may  have  to  live  days,  weeks 
or  months,  with  no  anaesthetic  to  assauge  its  sufferings,  and  nothing 
but  death  to  relieve.'" 

Dr.  Henry  J.  Bigelow,  LL.D.,  for  many  years  a  professor  in 
Harvard  Medical  School,  says :  "The  ground  for  public  supervision 
is  that  vivisection,  immeasurably  beyond  any  other  pursuit,  involves 
the  infliction  of  torture  to  little  or  no  purpose." 

Dr.  Leffingwell  tends  to  believe,  in  spite  of  the  psychologist's 
fallacy,  that  Mr.  Myers'  citation  of  dogs  having  been  observed  to 
wag  their  tails  and  lick  the  hands  of  the  operator,  betokens,  not  a 
happy  animal  indifference  to  fate,  but  rather  a  mute,  instinctive  and 
vain  appeal  for  sympathy. 

Concerning  the  utility  of  vivisection.  Dr.  Leffingwell  is  by  no 
means  so  sure  as  Mr,  Myers.  "Where  are  the  proofs  that  the  mor- 
tality from  typhoid  fever  in  any  country  has  been  reduced  by  the 
general  use  of  the  'appropriate  anti-toxin?'  Where  are  we  to  look 
for  similar  evidence  regarding  mortality  from  Mediterranean  or  yel- 
low fever?  Has  the  mortality  from  snake-bite  'been  diminished  in 
any  appreciable  degree  by  the  employment  of  a  remedy  regarding 
whose  use  we  are  assured  there  is  hardly  a  failure  on  record?'  If  so 
where  are  the  statistics?  There  are  none.  It  is  a  claim  of  the 
laboratory." 

Professor  Hodge,  of  Clarke  University,  declared  that  "God  clearly 
gives  to  man  every  sanction  to  cause  any  amount  of  physical  pain 
which  he  may  find  expedient  to  unravel  His  laws."  Dr.  Leffingwell 
lacking  the  necessary  general  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of 
ethics,  can  not  'accept  this  enunciation  of  the  vivisector's  creed,  and 
marvels  that  God  should  hide  facts  and  give  torture  the  right  to  find 
them. 

"What  may  we  hope  to  accomplish  in  the  reform  of  vivisection 
as  it  exists  to-day?  ...  It  seems  to  us  that,  first  of  all,  there 
must  be  the  gradual  creation  of  public  sentiment  which  shall  be 
eager,  not  so  much  to  approve  all  vivisection,  or  to  disapprove  it  all, 
as  to  know  with  certainty  the  facts.    Take,  for  example,  the  ques- 

31 


tion  of  vivisection  in  institutions  of  learning.  To  what  extent  is 
It  earned  on,  merely  to  demonstrate  what  every  student  knows  in 
advance?  .  .  .  The  removal  of  the  secrecy  that  so  generally  en- 
shrouds vtmsection  is  the  first  and  most  important  step  toward  anv 
true  reform.    [My  italics.] 

'*And  finally  there  must  come  the  regulation  of  vhUertlon  hy  law 
..  .  The  hzv  nught  to  hrin^  u^^n  official  records  the  numher  'ot  ex- 

rmed,  the   uOjecis  which  were   m   new,   the  results 
nned,  the  species  of  animal  upon  ivhieh  the  invesUm 


h  f  f  I  »>»  ,,'  yi 


'/"!?< 


y-^fp 


n *■•■:, ling  tnai 
This  is  a  nu: 


article  to  take 


made,   the   anaestnettcs  which   were   administered,    and 
rtains  to  the  Prevention  of  pain,     [My  italics.  • 

iiiniir; 


0, 


in   th 


r,-:- 


U)! 


notice  of 
RNAL    I  belie V 


Leffi.newe 


e.  however,  that  it  is  justified 


Further,  I  would  suggest  that  that  article  be  copied  verbatim 
magazines  interested   in  the  oromotion  of  liiimanJfnr;  .,.   ...,, 


promotion  of  humanitanai 


principle> 


a 


A  more  philosophic  treatment  of  what  has  unfortunate^ . 
very  much  confused  subject,  it  has  not  been  my  fortune  to  a  -    vf  r 
a  more  concise  indication  of  the  ends  toward  which  ref  >rrn  ^hn  ^^d 
be^  Its  energies  has  not  vet  appeared  in  print,     I  concf  iv-  tirr  ?> 

Leffingwell's  reply,  m  the  thoughts  of  all  right-minded  Dersons,  will 


consig! 


ethical 


in 


as  . 
ten^ 


t''«r 


A 


istries   as   are   contained 
paper  to  the  limbo  of  eternal  scorn.    Yiv-^ectaoi. 
ing  for  immediate  soiut  on    does  not  demand    a  i 
of  the  principles  of  ethics  and  psychology';  h    ah 
acceptance  of  our  direct  intimations  of  its  evils. 
Goethe,  "knows  what  he  is  doing  while  he  acts  arighr 
IS  wrong  we  are  ahvavs  conscious."    Those  who.  in  thi 
subordinate  the  pra  tical  impulse  toward  the  aileviation    «? 
woes  to  the  logical  demonstration  of  its  validity,  would  o 
read  Aristotle  on  the  golden  mean.     Publicity  and  rest     ♦ 

fnni.w"'^Tl!'°"'  ''  ^^  ^^^-TJ^.  ^^  ^'-  Leffingwell's' appeal,  .n 
appeal  to  which  every  one  should  lend  support. 


.Mr.    M'vers' 

oaldem  call- 
knowledge 

I  pragmatic 
'laie,     >a\■^ 

'01  .;.'i   what 

of  animal 
wed  it:; 
rao   nio 


Columbia  University. 


Philip  Hyatt  T 


Al?t 


32 


/ 


,'^-' 

*.'. 


k     \^  1%  a¥1         ^•....-'  J-  i-.i  i_rf  V-^  Iwi  l_w  >»^    A 


c'ive  and  bequeath  the  sum  of. 


Dollars 


toihrl'U'ISECllON  RFFORM  :OCTFTY.  a  corporation 
organzi  .        :  exi^t.:  g  uc   ;:r  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 


for  its  corporal t=   ii?r^  and  purposes. 


vf 


K 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERS 


0026050188 


TY 


f 


I 


V 


/ 


^ 

rg 

fO 

ixirt 

'J^ 

> 

-^ 

o 

u. 

a» 

O 

o 

Hi 

o-t 

o 

-r 

«— « 

ijj 

• 

> 

u 

o^ 

•uJ 

r- 

^t 

U) 

f-4 

M 

3 

f 


V  ^1 


